In Roy's years, we had more than enough games against top 25 opponents in our ACC schedule. We typically had 3 or 4 teams in or around the top 10, with half the conference in or around the top 25 (I'm going off the top of my head, so consider all this approximate). Our pre-conference schedule really only mattered for preparing us for conference play. Now with the ACC so soft, we need quality wins in pre-conference play to bolster our tournament resume.
Yes... but... the success of the ACC is not something that is under Hubert's control. Roy coached his teams in a way that allowed them to improve across the season. How they came in was never how they finished. Part of that depended on building early season confidence - facing a few top 25 teams, sure, but also his fair share of weaker competition, in order to build depth, take some risks with lineups, and just let the team have some fun blowing out lesser teams (etc.)
Hubert has not had that luxury, in part because the schedule has always been "top" (beginning of the season) heavy. His teams have had to fight their way out of holes - in games, sure, but also versus the competition. A brutal early schedule delays players getting into a rhythm - which is one of my least favorite things about college football - where 1-2 early season losses can derail hopes of achieving greatness.
In basketball, there is always hope, but if people fly too close to the sun, too quickly, like Icarus, they are likely to fall.
I didn't like how the season ended last year, but the product at the end of the year was undeniably better than the product at the beginning. That has been true in at least three of Hubert's seasons. "Yes, but teams should always improve" you might argue. True, but every team should improve. If you are performing better at the end vs. the competition you face, then you did early, that shows me that growth is occurring.
